Friday, January 14, 2011

Science disproves athiesm: The evidence I spoke about

this is supposed to be on Metacrock's blog. so just read it. I'll try to keep this from happening in the future.

Anonymous atheist made this comment to the last post on "Atheist Fear of Gardening."


Please provide links to your evidence that science disproves atheism. This is a truly incredible claim and I cannot wait to read about the God of the Gaps. Or do you have something better? Please share.


It's important to understand the context.He probalby thought I mean creationism. I am not a creationist. Anyone familiar with my blog or Doxa (my site) knows that I am not a creationist, I see no contradiction between belief in God and evolution. The scientific knowledge I have in mind is the disprove of the atheist BS about scinece is the only from of knowledge and only scientific things can be believed. Science itself disproves this becuase it opens up so many vistas of which we have no further knowledge. The silly easy little idea that atheists so often propound, we have the only factual view becuase we just reject everything ot proved by scinece and believe ever thing that is proved, is an ideology. All the while they are spouting that they are swearing "there is no atheist ideology." They are sitting there vehemently denying they have an ideology as part of the ideology they are obviously wailing.

Here is what I said in the Gardening thing, this is what he's referring to:

Atheists will try to mock and ridicule the notion of the inner life. This is because they mock and ridicule anything that doesn't stack up to their ideology about truncated reality. They must collapse reality to eliminate possibles, so one doesn't seek God.the way they do this is to prescribe only one aspect aspect of reality as real, that which is empirically derived from scientific observation. Now a good deal of empirical scientific data disproves atheism but of they can't allow that. Evidence which does not support their conclusions they reduce to their canon of prescribed reality by indicting it's scientific nature in all manner of bogus ways. They have to create the idea that only that which supports the ideology is valid. To do this they cling to the surface of reality. Things are only what can be gleaned form surface level facts of existence of physical objects and nothing else. There is no depth of being, they must create confusion about the very concept of being. They will call it abstraction and say it's pretend and so forth. Just as they label faith as "pretending" and what have you. Everything feeds back into the central thesis; reality is surface level only. That is the level of reality for them because that's what their knowledge controls. Anything deep requires thought, and thought is liberating. If one begins to think about reality and what depth means one begins to unravel the mythology that says only transcribe scientifically derived things can be in existence. To unravel that is to step onto the road to belief and they must avoid that at all costs.
This means that when I present the evidence you can expect them to deny that is matter, or that is scientific, or that is evidence. They are going to pull the ideolgoical line that it has to prove conclusively without ambiguous up front to such a degree that no sane person can argue with it. There is no such evidence anywhere on anything. Even the most solid scientific evidence can be argued about. All studies can be attacked. Everything can be doubted and their philosophy feeds on doubt. Science is not about proving things. Many philosophers of scinece agree with Karl Popper that scientific hypohtesis can only be disproved not proved. Since athism is essentually a philosphy of doubt, a lack of belief, a negative, its' ideology and it's postiive affirmations masquerade as the absence of something while functioning as the presence of something this is ideal for them, since they feed off of the denial aspect of argument anyway.

Two more observations before we get to the evidence. First of all, I did not say that God can be proved through scientific evidence. I said atheism can be proved wrong. What does that mean? It means that (1) the way scinece works disproves the assertions of the ideology that science is the only knowledge and that atheism is built upon a factual fortress. (2) it means that the basic assumptions under which the atheist ideology works can be contradicted with scientific evidence, that does not equal "God can be proved with science." Secondly, the idea of proving the existence of God is contrary to Christian theology. Not that Christianity is opposed to proving things, but long before modern scinece existed Christian mystics, thinkers,philosophers and religious authorities held to the noting God is beyond our understanding. God is not a thing alongside other things in creation. So what we aim for is rational warrant rather than proof. In other words, the demonstration that there is rational reason to believe a given hypothesis. That doesn't' mean that smaller supporting constructs can't be proved, or at least given Verisimilitude. The major tenets of faith such the reality of God need not be prove because they not amenable to proof, at least not empirical proof. they are not empirical matters. They must be resolved in other ways.

Disproof of the ideology atheists are always spouting, that their view is a big pile of "facts" that prove everything that is worth believing, self referential and self aggrandizing see my three part essay on the limitations of scinece.

Theoretical contradictions at the heart of atheism.

Theoretical contradictions of atheism two: reverse quantum argument.

Traces of God: answering reverse design argument

read all that and on Monday I'll deal with the issue of positive evidence for the reality of God.

6 comments:

Electric said...

So your post title and the post itself were wrong - science does not disprove atheism.

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. It says nothing whatsoever about science being the only source of knowledge. Looks like you're battling against your own strawman.

Oh, and atheism? Still not an ideology.

Metacrock said...

no you are naive, you re merely swallowing the party line hook, line and sinker.

Read the blog I've proved it's a movement an ideology.

Electric said...

no you are naive, you re merely swallowing the party line hook, line and sinker.

Read the blog I've proved it's a movement an ideology.

There is no "party line".

I've read the blog and no, you haven't proved either that it's a movement or an ideology. You don't seem to know what either mean.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That's it. There are no other positions, creeds, beliefs or states of mind needed. Atheism is an ideology just like not believing in Santa is an ideology.

Metacrock said...

Meta"no you are naive, you re merely swallowing the party line hook, line and sinker."

Read the blog I've proved it's a movement an ideology.
There is no "party line".


knee reaction. I sure did. I showed a vast legal effort that must have costs millions involving over 30 major suits, a vast propaganda machine involving several magazine's and a pretense at academic discipline and copy of the Jesus seminary to rail road Jesus existence out of history--only a total fool would fail to see a movement there.

your brain washing tells you it's not a movement and like good little slave you repeat it without thinking.

I've read the blog and no, you haven't proved either that it's a movement or an ideology. You don't seem to know what either mean.


My good young litle oufh. I have been involed in socail movements all my life. I was a communist. I was a sociology major, history of ideas and commie. I know ideology when I see it, and I know movments when I join them.

I was also an atheist. I know more about atheism than you do.


Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That's it.

that's the party line, good little slave. you recite the party like you are supposed to. good goooooo slave!

There are no other positions, creeds, beliefs or states of mind needed. Atheism is an ideology just like not believing in Santa is an ideology.


doesn't it dawn by now? If it wasn't indomitably why do you get so upset when i say it is? The party line is being transgressed that's why you are angry. the fact hat you are shows there is a party line.

Ben Phoenix said...

Actually, you do make a mistaken assumption. Essentially there are a group of people, who are atheists, who have a secular agenda. Mostly these are a sub-set of atheists known as secular humanists. That is quite correct, and millions has been spent and a lot of effort put into the promotion of their agenda. However, the mistake you make is in treating atheism like it is a cohesive ideology that all people who do not believe there is a god subscribe to. This isn't true at all. I don't belong to any official groups, involve myself in campaigning or spend any money whatsoever in the promotion of atheism. I do not belong to the humanists, though I share some of their values I do not consider that their actions are a reflection of my own thoughts. The other mistake you make is in approaching atheism the way you might approach a religion, such a christianity. Religion tend to be quite comprehensive in their ideologies. That is to say that religions tend to have morals, expected behaviours, traditions, rituals and other social conventions. Which makes it easy (but wrong) to look at atheist in that same light. Well this "ism" (let's say christianity, but it doesn't matter which) is a comprehensive world-view and ideology, and most members of that religion follow most of the same precepts and aspects of this. In fact it is often, if not always, a requirement of membership that a person subscribe to these things. If this is the case with one "ism", surely then to it must be for atheism. This simply isn't true. What you have is all people have ideologies, atheist or not. Atheism itself doesn't define anything of that ideology beyond the rejection of god belief. It isn't even a rejection of faith, just god. What you have looked at are the collective ideologies of people who happen to be atheist, but whose ideology is made up mostly of another organisation, whether that be academic or humanist or whatever else. I would advise you to re-evaluate what you think in this area, really try to understand the difference between an unaffiliated atheist and someone who is the member of a group that has a comprehensive ideology and world-view. Such a blunder is actually akin to saying all people who believe in a god but have no religion, still have the same agendas, are active in these agendas, as the religions they don't belong to. I wouldn't point to a pantheist and say "you have an agenda, and your lot have spent a lot of money discouraging the use of protection in high aids risk nations".

I kind of expect, after you performance in previous comments here, that you will dismiss my comments as "the party line". Or you will accuse me of being angry, or some other such ad hominem and emotive forms of dismissal, rather than consider what has been said on its merits. In advance I will assure you, I am not annoyed, nor do I subscribe to a movement where I have been brainwashed. These thoughts and observations are my own. In fact, there are certain aspects of the vocal humanist and scientific community, with relation to anti-religious campaigning, which I flat out disagree with.

Ben Phoenix said...

I will finish with one last flaw in your argument, which is perhaps the most telling. Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that all people who don't believe in god, believe in science as the only means of determining the nature of the world, and that thereby atheism is wrong because it doesn't adhere to those same scientific principles. This, too, is just incorrect. There is nothing about atheism which says someone must believe in science. Atheism is a descriptor, it means to not believe in god. Which means that there are spiritualists who are atheists, who do not follow or believe in science. There are also atheists who believe the earth is flat, or that aliens visit our planet. These are not scientific beliefs. You conflate science and atheism incorrectly. I once heard an argument that Stephen Hawking isn't a good scientist because he is an atheist, and we cannot disprove god scientifically. This is, of course, complete rubbish. It is very similar to what you're saying. A person's personal beliefs and their scientific work are entirely separate things. You could use the same argument against scientists with religion, or with non-religious god beliefs. Thus, as one is not required to believe science to be atheist*, nor is a scientist required to be an atheist, then the entire argument falls apart.

The only thing I would concede is that atheists tend to be rational, and the rational tend to find scientific answers to the world's mysteries compelling. That is the only thing in this article that comes close to rational reasoning. I don't mean to be rude, I am merely pointing out the facts.

*unlike christianity or other religions, where one does have to subscribe to ideas outside the immediate question of god's existence